Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 1

QUESTIONS 

How can we deal with the following contradiction: dividing the content of general music into distinct 

categories so it is easier to understand the scope, but also maintaining strong connections between the 

vast content of general music; should we attempt both/either? And how? 

What is/are the biggest goal/s of elementary level general music? 

Who (among learners) benefits the most from the current structure of content and pedagogy in 

elementary level general music? Who does not? 

What are the biggest changes in the past decade to both the content and teaching of general music? 

What changes lie ahead in the coming decade? 

How can we assess the effects of these changes?   

Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 2

PROPOSAL 

Purpose: The open-ended nature of the definition of “general music” creates both a problem and 

a possibility for its solution. The problem is that no one could possibly perceive the vastness of the 

musical world in the same manner as someone else. The concepts one person chooses to try to explain 

music “generally” may be completely different than someone else’s. If we simply say that general music is 

meant to teach the most essential concepts of music, that leads to more questions: Essential in what 

sense? To the business of music? To the science of music? To the story of music? A general music class 

cannot possibly turn over every stone of humanity’s history with music with 45 minutes a day for a 

semester which leaves teachers to explore what corners of music should and can be illuminated. 

Inquiry Question: How can we use the categorization of curriculum and musical genre in a way 

that best engages learners? 

   
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 3

Article 1​ ​(Abril, 2006) 

APA Citation information​:  

Abril, C. R. (2006). Learning outcomes of two approaches to multicultural music education. International 

Journal of Music Education, 24(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761406063103 

Purpose of the Study: 

The purpose is to examine the effect of multicultural music instruction on learning outcomes.  

Methods and Participants: 

Participants were made up of 170 fifth-grade students across four schools in a suburban school district. 

Students were predominantly middle- to upper-class white individuals. Each school had two evenly sized 

multicultural classes. One class focused on music concepts while the other focused on the sociocultural 

importance of the music. Classes used the same material, but approached it through these different 

lenses. At the end of the teaching period, each student submitted two learning statements; using the 

prompts “I learned...” and “I learned how to…”.  

Key Findings: 

A comparable percentage of responses indicated both sociocultural and music skills at the same rate in 

each class. The main difference was that the responses about knowledges correlated with the lens of the 

class.  

Discussion Points: 

The similarity of responses pertaining to skill are attributed to the fact that experiences in each class are 

similar (same songs, instruments, games). The differences in knowledges come into play by the 

questions the teacher asks. In the sociocultural class, the musical objectives are ancillary and so while 

discussed, they are not the focus of class discussion and vice versa. 
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 4

Your Comments/Questions: 

This study shows that while skills may be developing through activities, the direction of the discussion 

has a major role in what kind of knowledges students will take away. 

   
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 5

Article 2​ ​(Madsen, 1990) 

APA Citation information​:  

Madsen, C., & Geringer, J. (1990). Differential patterns of music listening: Focus of attention of musicians 

versus nonmusicians. ​Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,​ (105), 45-57. 

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318390 

Purpose of the Study: 

The purpose was to compare what features of music people found most salient while listening.  

Methods and Participants: 

The two groups of listeners were made up of 60 university level music majors and 60 non-music majors. 

They both listened to 30 second clips of various pieces of classical music picked by musicologists to 

represent different elements of music. There were two pieces each to represent timbre, dynamics, 

rhythm, melody and two that were meant to represent an amalgamation of all four elements. Each listener 

slides on a dial to indicate which element they are hearing the most of while listening.  

Key Findings: 

The music majors far more consistently picked the elements that the musicologists had intended. The 

Non-majors picked the same elements about 60% of the time, but they most often ended up picking 

dynamics and melody. 

Discussion Points: 

The results are seen as less of a result of knowledge gaps in the non-majors, but more as different 

listening habits. 

Your Comments/Questions: 

I think the conclusion is a pretty obvious one as it would be assumed that if the non-majors are chosen 

for this study, they know what all the elements mean. In general music, figuring out what elements of 

music are most naturally heard by students, gives us a baseline to approach listening.   
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 6

Article 3​ ​(Madsen, 1997) 

APA Citation information​:  

Madsen, C., Geringer, J., & Fredrickson, W. (1997). Focus of Attention to Musical Elements in Haydn's 

"Symphony #104". Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (133), 57-63. Retrieved from 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318840 

Purpose of the Study: 

The purpose is to discover which musical elements of a Haydn symphony students experience most 

heavily. This is extended to address how teachers can use listening most effectively to keep students 

focused. 

Methods and Participants: 

Group one was made up of 50 music majors that listened to an excerpt of the symphony individually and 

used a dial to indicate which elements they were most focused on. The second group was also made up 

of 50 music majors but was divided into five groups of ten that used a Likert scale to address their focus 

on each element individually. 

Key Findings: 

There was no significant difference for either group in the perception of the elements. After the study, 

students took a questionnaire noting if and when they had an aesthetic experience. Both groups’ focus on 

rhythm correlated highly with their aesthetic experience. 

Discussion Points: 

There was nothing conclusive discovered about the differences in perception of musical elements when 

listened for separately versus simultaneously. The biggest point of discussion is that focus on elements 

of music creates more attention to listening. 

Your Comments/Questions: 
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 7

Students will be more engaged with what they are listening to if they have specific elements they are 

listening for. Even more important than having these elements is tracking which of these elements 

facilitate the students in having an aesthetic experience.   

Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 8

Article 4​ ​(Juchniewicz, 2008) 

APA Citation information​:  

Juchniewicz, J. (2008). The influence of physical movement on the perception of musical performance. 

Psychology of Music, 36(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607086046 

Purpose of the Study: 

The purpose of the study is to find out if and how performer’s bodily movements affect the listeners 

perception of the quality of the music. 

Methods and Participants: 

There were 112 participants made up of roughly equal parts male and female as well as graduate and 

undergraduate students. There were all in music concentrations. They were asked to observe three 

performances of the same excerpt of a piece. The performance was a video in which a performer played 

using: no body movement, head movement only, and full body movement. The music itself was the same 

recording all three times. Each listener rated the elements of phrasing, dynamics, rubato and overall on a 

1-5 Likert scale for each performance. 

Key Findings: 

The no movement performance had an aggregate score of about 12 out of 20. The head movement 

performance received about 12.5. The full body movement performance received over 15. There was no 

significant difference between the ratings based on gender or school level. 

Discussion Points: 

A listener’s perception of rubato, dynamics, phrasing and overall effect are affected by visual stimuli. This 

change in perception is not significantly different between levels of college education. Some future 

research in this area might include comparing visual only and audio only performances for comparison.  

Your Comments/Questions: 
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 9

When presenting different genres of music, it’s important to give students the best opportunity to 

experience musical elements. It seems obvious that we would want to use great musical performances to 

give students those experiences, but it’s also important to realize the visual elements that may strengthen 

or even create these elements. 

   
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 10

Article 5​ ​(Capperella-Sheldon, 1992) 

APA Citation information​:  

Capperella-Sheldon, D. (1992). SELF-PERCEPTIO OF AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE AMONG MUSICIANS AND 

NON-MUSICIANS IN RESPONSE TO WIND BAND MUSIC. Journal of Band Research, 28(1), 57. 

Retrieved from h
​ ttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1312122022?accountid=11667 

Purpose of the Study: 

The purpose of the study was to find out the difference or similarity in the self-percieved aesthetic 

experiences of musicians and non-musicians while listening to music.  

Methods and Participants: 

48 undergraduate non-musicians and 43 undergraduate musicians listened to a recording of the first 

movement of Holst’s First Suite. They used a dial to indicate the level of aesthetic experience they 

perceived themselves to be experiencing. Afterwards, subjects also answered a survey indicating if they 

had an aesthetic experience of multiple ones and why. 

Key Findings: 

Both groups had over 90% of participants express feeling an aesthetic experience. The musician group 

had 46% express multiple experiences compared to the non-musicians’ 16%. When asked what drove 

aesthetic experiences, both groups explained similar ideas using different words. Return of themes and 

harmonic shifts were the major drivers. Peak experiences lasted about 15 seconds longer for 

non-musicians. 

Discussion Points: 

Both groups had peaks of experience at the same times in the piece. Both groups also referenced the 

musical elements that caused this, just using different words. Musicians used “major chords” and “choral 
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 11

orchestration” while non-musicians used “happy chords” and “different instruments” to describe the same 

sections.  

Your Comments/Questions: 

This study shows that musicians and non-musicians alike can self-perceive aesthetic experiences and 

even hear and indicate the possible causes for the experience. Some studies may suggest specific 

listening criteria assists in perceiving aesthetic experience, but this study shows an example where over 

90% of listeners were able to come to similar conclusions about the causes and magnitudes of aesthetic 

experiences without pretext.  

   
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 12

Article 6​ ​(Holloway, 2004) 

APA Citation information​:  

Holloway, M. (2004). The Use of Cooperative Action Learning to Increase Music Appreciation Students' 

Listening Skills. College Music Symposium, 44, 83-93. Retrieved from 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40374492 

Purpose of the Study: 

The purpose of the study was to determine if the cooperative action learning method was more effective 

than the lecture method on the acquisition of listening skills. 

Methods and Participants: 

The participants were made up of four music appreciation classes each with 22 students. Two of the 

classes were taught using the lecture method and two were taught using the cooperative action learning 

method. All participants took a pre and post test with true or false questions about a Mozart listening 

excerpt (e.g. “the melody is descending, true or false?”. In the lecture class, teachers gave class lectures 

from the textbook. In the other class, the teacher used a variety of group and creative projects involving 

objective and subjective learning. 

Key Findings: 

The improvement between pre and post test was much greater for the cooperative action class. The test 

goes from a scale of negative 58 to positive 58. The lecture class went from a mean score of 5.43 to 

6.18. The other class went from 7.34 to 20.09. 

Discussion Points: 

The main differences in the experiences was that the cooperative action learning class accessed 

information at all levels of Bloom’s taxonomy while the lecture class did not. In the cooperative class, also 

had creative and group projects that allowed them to see music from their classmate’s and their own 

perspective as composers. 

Your Comments/Questions: 
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 13

The composition and group projects were early in the semester so students quickly developed some pride 

and agency for their listening ability. Instead of just listening alone or in a large class, each individual had 

something important to contribute, using their ears. 

   
Ritcher INQUIRY PROJECT 14

Themes in the Literature​: 

● Aesthetic: These listening studies focus heavily on finding when the aesthetic experience 

happens and what its cause is. Students listening to a Haydn symphony were asked to point out 

its most salient features using a dial and also note when they were experiencing an aesthetic 

experience. Though rhythm was not the most salient feature of the piece, it was the most salient 

feature during times when students were noting an aesthetic experience (Madsen, 1997). 

● Musicians and non-musicians: Many of the studies compare people that currently play an 

instrument versus those who do not. When music majors were given 30 second clips of pieces 

and asked to state its most salient feature, the picked the features that were intended about 90% 

of the time. Non-music majors picked the intended features about 60% of the time, but more 

importantly, they picked “dynamics” and “melody” more than the music majors (Madsen, 1990). 

When musicians and non-musicians were asked to point out the aesthetic peaks of Holst’s first 

suite, they often picked the same spots for the same reason though they used different language 

to explain (Capparella-Sheldon, 1992). 

● Language: In each source, the language used is important. Two “Multicultural Music” classes 

used the same set of activities and resources but one used discussion questions about strictly 

music theory and the other about societal elements of the music. Both classes acquired similar 

skill sets but had different documented knowledges (Abril, 2006).  

● Visuals: The effects of what is physically in front of someone while they are listening to music is 

explored in a few of the studies. Music majors rating three performance videos, each with the 

same audio, but different levels of performer movement consistently rated the performance with 

the greatest movement higher in expressivity than that with the least movement (Juchniewicz, 

2008).